News:

It doesn't matter to us what we did "back in the day". Today is the only day that matters and BITD relates only to someone else's day. Today, for us, is our day and it's the only day worth living for. --Mark Hudon on the Reticent Wall.

Author
Topic: Schedule of Offenses? (Read 1084 times)

an interesting list of ethical offenses with increasing order of impact (or 'offense' importance) was proposed on supertopo recently. Without dipping into the morass on that thread, does the ordering seem right as a general principle? What mitigating factors are there?

For example, is an enhanced hook placement to replace a trenched head placement more sustainable and thus less blameworthy?

Upgrading 1/4" bolts in an anchor to 3/8" or 1/2" Adding a 2nd, 3rd, 4th belay bolt Changing rivets to bolts on an A1 climb Adding bolts to an anchor that was previously gear only Changing rivets to bolts on an A2 or higher climb Changing trenched heads to bolts Adding bolts to a bolt ladder to make it less reachy Enhancing aid placements Adding bolts to a bolt ladder to remove challenges at the start/end of the ladder Adding bolts to bypass a free or aid crux Chipping free holds

everyone is okay with upgrading most existing anchor bolts with beefier bolts.

everyone is NOT okay with chipping free holds to make the climb go at an easier grade.

credit goes to those guys on the thread. But it really is an interesting way of looking at it. Sort of intuitive, but hadn't really stack ranked them before. But some things are worse and some are non-issues/nice to haves.

For instance, I don't see a principled basis on which to object to a variation pitch that includes a bolt ladder. A full bolt ladder pitch though is not kosher. There are 'big wall' routes recognized that are a couple of pitch variations with hardware. How to justify the difference? Not sure one can.

The more detail that goes into an ethical scenario, the more the pendulum can swing to the blameworthiness or praiseworthiness of the effort.

the steeped in tradition we can be, the more that ethical pendulum swings toward conserving what he wave since it is a limited resource.

Gray is a hard area, Especially the shades where you can see the logic either way.

I'd say we have to err on the side of conservatism as well, I think most people would with the exception of maybe Erik Sloan. But where in the spectrum is that? Interesting topic without all of the Chest Thumping.

Sort of. I'm saying that the experience of climbing the route has to be taken into account as much as sustainability is. A string of copperheads with a trenched head in the middle is better for the user group(faist and climbers that follow) than one with a bolt or rivet in the middle (which significantly changed the character and pucker factor of the pitch).

The argument in favor of rivet over trenched head because the head will eventually blow and thus need a rivet can just as easily be thought of as, trench the head so the experience is there and when it does blow then that's sad and the community will place the rivet at that time.

Because let's be honest here. Brutally honest. 99% of bigwall routes being put up now will never be climbed again or will be climbed very few times before fading into obscurity. Sustainability differences between a rivet and a trenched head for a route that has very little chance of becoming popular are moot at best. And if the argument is that a more sustainable route that is put up in the most impeccable possible method will become popular, then I hate to break it to you, most bigwall climbers today don't give a rats ass about how good the route is, they care if anyone they consider cool has climbed the route and if anyone will recognize the name of the route when they spray about it at the bridge or at the water cooler. And if you think to yourself, well I care so that must mean something, remember that the mere fact that you're reading this website places you out of the population of most current bigwall climbers.

Modern Bigwall FA's and their effect upon the Rock is about as relevant and effectfull in the grand scope of things as whether you decide to pee on the rock or bring your off the wall with you after climbing any route that's not one of the trade routes.

« Last Edit: October 24, 2015, 04:13:55 pm by cobbledik »

Logged

Sometimes the difference between a layman and a journeyman is simply what he is allowed to believe himself to be.

But not all FAs are going to be danger riddled affairs like cutting edge A4. So let me pose this; if the pucker factor is a quality to be preserved, why not an enhanced hook? Make it a really shitty enhanced hook so you're damn close to blowing it, and the string of heads? Well, I think it has to do with not wanting danger as the ultimate goal, otherwise why aren't all routes just hooking affairs? Sustainability is built into the game. You use stainless steel bolts, no? Why not go cheap? Why not haul off gear and rickety rivets?

Whether a route becomes a classic in 10 years, cannot be known antecedently to the climb.

I'm not suggesting there is a mandate to do a rivet in that case, I'm just suggesting that from one perspective a rivet is just as good as a trenched head, depending on the context.

You don't manufacture pucker factor. ..you just assess & decide if you can deal with it. If not, you should retreat. If you proceed, there's a responsibility to solve the puzzle that is before you in the best style possible. Sustainability is a factor, though it's not the only one.

"...character and pucker factor of a pitch (of which character is 90% of the importance and pucker is 10% of the importance. - or better yet, just character of a pitch because pucker factor is part of character and the effect of the word pucker to be considered manufacturing experience is too juicy to let go of and clouds the intent of the post)"

Logged

Sometimes the difference between a layman and a journeyman is simply what he is allowed to believe himself to be.

I'm leaning toward Skull on this one. In a mostly self defined game, solving the problem in your best style, is really what 'character' of the climb becomes. So whether one strings it out, or cuts it down to A3 from A4 on an FA is really just a choice of which rules to apply. Not to get me wrong, there is pride in that sort of self overcoming of stringing it WAY out. The mental discipline, the character of oneself that is shown in the route, the risk placed on the partner and or the responsibility of mitigating risk to the partner are all part of it.

Mitigating risk to partner is key. I've riveted around loose blocks that might have gone but also might have killed my belayer. The best character of any climb is when everyone comes home in one piece.

Logged

Sometimes the difference between a layman and a journeyman is simply what he is allowed to believe himself to be.

In a mostly self defined game, solving the problem in your best style, is really what 'character' of the climb becomes. So whether one strings it out, or cuts it down to A3 from A4 on an FA is really just a choice

%

That you, the leader get to make 100%.

There Munge, i kicked out the "rules" part mostly because FA'st are generally outcasts that follow no RULEZ ahhahh. Perfect description Munge!

I have been on at least 2-3 real deal, modern A4-A5 pitches. I was the first to climb these features. I knew they would force me to rise up to the technical portion very quickly, and 6+ hours in maintain a steady head.

I drilled when I had reached my technical limit of climbing. No rules, nobody telling me to push it, just me making a judgment call.Those did not garner a A4-A5 rating. Anybody can argue how many beaks need to be tipped out for A4 all day, but I know how far I pushed and feel that Nothing I have done is bonafide modern A4. But My A4 is different than the other guys A4, and so on.

Pasting all the heads and beaks, diggin out placements, drilling the odd rivet, and then having to drill at least one fattie at the end of the pitch is all I know how to do.

Just as a side note, Joe Marlay and I were surprised and kind of disgusted by how many drilled bathooks we climbed past on Aurora last month. A few of them were necessary to pass blank sections between features or rivets. But I lost track of how many times we climbed right past a hole by other means and didn't notice them until we were above it, saying "WTF!?"

For instance on the crux "A4" American Zone pitch Gnarly Marlay was hooking crumbling flakes just above the belay looking at ripping to the anchor and then was like, "oh wtf!? There's a bathooks right there!" Multiple times.

Anyway. I'm bringing some putty and a bag of granite dust up every route from now on to fill any hole that I can climb past. I'm just an average climber at best, and I'm only 5ft 9inches tall...if I can get by a move without a hole then anyone should be able to.